AT&T and astroturf: is “following the money” enough?

As the FCC prepares to lay down tougher net neutrality rules, hundreds of …

AT&T's government lobbying has a long and fairly sordid history. Before taking you inside our investigation of AT&T's recent anti-net neutrality lobbying (and the charges of "astroturfing" being thrown around), let's take a stroll down memory lane.

It was 1976, and a House subcommittee was considering a bill called the Consumer Communications Reform Act. The proposed law, heavily backed by AT&T, would have made the then monopoly even more of one by effectively declaring its long distance system America's "official" service. The bill clearly targeted a competitor: MCI's new microwave tower network, just being rolled out across the country. For days, Capitol Hill had been deluged by workers, priests, police chiefs, mayors, and anybody else Ma Bell could round up to support the legislation.

Then Representative Tim Wirth of Colorado walked into the hearing room. He saw that it was packed with people. Wirth asked the first panelist, an AT&T executive, to identify his colleagues. Five minutes later the man was still reading out names.

As it was then, so it is now. It should be no surprise to anyone that, as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposes new net neutrality rules, AT&T Senior Vice President Jim Cicconi has sent out a e-mail to the company's entire managerial staff urging them to deluge the FCC's new discussion site with anti-net neutrality comments. The memo includes recommended talking points:

"The 'net neutrality' rules as reported will jeopardize the very goals supported by the Obama administration that every American have access to high-speed Internet services no matter where they live or their economic circumstance," Cicconi warns. "That goal can't be met with rules that halt private investment in broadband infrastructure. And the jobs associated with that investment will be lost at a time when the country can least afford it."

Fair enough; AT&T doesn't like the idea of network neutrality rules. But the company has long been accused of going well beyond such overt lobbying. It's also said to be a master at creating fake grassroots enthusiasm—so-called "astroturf" campaigns—often using small minority and civil rights groups as pawns in its government affairs chess game. Those charges are now being made once again, and Ars investigated the issue.

Avoiding tentative conclusions

Jobs, jobs, jobs. That was the line in 1976, and that's the line being toed by everybody from state Attorneys General to town council selectmen. If there's one thing that both the pre- and post-breakup AT&T is good at, it's corralling huge numbers of people—workers, politicians, non-profits, ministers, whoever—into carrying the telco's water on the latest hot topic, and the telco isn't adverse to spreading lots of scratch around in return.

Take those 72 Democratic representatives who wrote to the FCC last week urging the FCC "to avoid tentative conclusions" on net neutrality "which favor government regulation." A Washington Post analysis says that all but two of them took a combined $180,000 in AT&T campaign contribution money, plus plenty more from Comcast and Verizon.

And that's just the beginning of the money trail. To appreciate the vast influence that AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon enjoy, check out the AT&T Foundation's 2007 tax returns as an example: it has pages and pages of non-profits, charities, support groups, and community centers that receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in telco largesse.

Thumbing through the return, it's easy to come to simple, "follow-the-money" conclusions about some of the filings which the FCC is now receiving. Take the go-slow on net neutrality commentary filed in late September by the Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP) and 19 other civil rights groups. Their statement warns that net neutrality policies could inhibit investment and "leave disenfranchised communities further behind." The coalition describes themselves as having a common purpose, serving communities "that are among the most severely impacted by a lack of access to technology." And indeed the list includes signers from venerable organizations like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).

But the groups signing the letter have something else in common: financial support from AT&T (and sometimes Verizon and Comcast). These advocates don't hide this. For example, the website of one of the signers, the Japanese American Citizens League, says "Website made possible by the generous sponsorship of AT&T." 100 Black Men lists AT&T as a "partner" and "sponsor" of the group. AT&T Foundation's 2007 tax returns show that 100 Black Men received $100,000 that year and $75,000 in 2006.

Similarly, the NAACP, which also signed the statement, lists AT&T and Verizon on its Centennial Event sponsors page. LULAC's website indicates that it received a $1.5 million Technology Access Grant from AT&T. Comcast Foundation's records indicate that it gave the LULAC Institute $60,000 in 2007. And in 2006 the AT&T Foundation gave LULAC numerous grants to support computer education centers across the United States.

And some of these groups have even more direct ties to the telcos. The Asian American Justice Center's Advisory Council includes Anne H. Chow, listed as "AT&T Chair" on the group's website. In 2006, AT&T identified her as a senior vice president for the company. Her AAJC bio says that Chow "played a key role in the AT&T/SBC merger with overall responsibility for the Sales and Marketing integration planning effort."

Wrong side of the divide

But when we spoke with HTTP's Sylvia Aguilera, it was obvious that there was more than money doing the talking here. We asked her straight out if AT&T or one of the other big ISPs put her group up to writing the letter. No, she replied, it was she who had initiated the action. HTTP's worries about net neutrality stem from concerns that the policy could slow down investment in ISP rollout, she explained, an area where many Latinos are finding jobs. We also asked AT&T whether they had a hand in the statement, but received no reply.

Ironically, while pro-neutrality activists see astroturf in all this, Aguilera sees something similar in the net neutrality movement. An HTTP analysis calls it "dominated by mainstream consumer advocates and the technology and telecommunications policy elite, groups that are least familiar and least equipped to discuss the perspectives of communities on the wrong side of the digital divide." We asked Aguilera which groups she was talking about. She wouldn't say.

But before you jump on that comment, consider the subject from the viewpoint of a blue-collar Latino, black, or white worker. Where would you have the best chance at finding employment--getting a staff position at everybody's favorite pro-neutrality company, Google, or supporting last mile lines for AT&T?

This kind of perception gap is not unique to net neutrality, either. In 2004, the Center for Public Integrity issued a report contending that many of the civil rights and women's advocacy groups who signed statements against "a la carte" cable programming, then supported by then FCC Chair Kevin Martin, received donations from the cable industry. (A la carte is the notion that consumers should be able to buy cable channels on an individual basis.)

The mentioned groups were quite upset with the report (especially when Martin cited it at an Aspen Institute Forum) because regardless of who they took money from, they sincerely thought that a la carte would make it harder for minority programmers to generate advertising revenue on cable platforms (few people would subscribe to tiny, minority-oriented channels, but they might watch occasional shows if the network was included in a broader cable package).

Similarly, the HTTP coalition takes exception to suggestions that its perspectives are telco-driven, even if some of its members do take telco money. A recent commentary by Art Brodsky of Public Knowldge didn't mention the HTTP group, but it did note that on the net neutrality question, many minority advocates, "for whatever reason—whether they believe what the Big Telecom companies tell them or not," appear to "land on policies that hurt their constituencies."

Brodsky's statement also wondered whether an upcoming anti-net neutrality ad signed by some of these groups is being directed towards Mignon Clyburn, the FCC's newest Democrat and an African-American woman.

Aguilera quickly published an indignant response to this post, denying the Clyburn suggestion. "We take genuine exception to the manner in which the author dismisses minorities' opinions as naively misinformed," she declared, the statement co-signed by NAACP Vice President Hilary O. Shelton.

And so net neutrality activists face a big challenge: convincing a wider range of stakeholders that uncertain new reforms will not jeopardize their stake in the present system. It is in those anxieties that AT&T and company find allies.

Do you have an estimate?

Still, while money doesn't explain everything, it doesn't explain nothing, either. For instance, media reform group Free Press pointed out to us the curious case of the Arkansas Retired Seniors Coalition. The group filed a letter (PDF) with the FCC that opposed network neutrality... but forgot to strip out the "XYZ organization" and replace the text with its own name. (Cue ageist "senior moment" joke here.) We've highlighted the odd text below:

The group appears to have left no discernible traces on the Internet, and no website could be found. Yet it cares enough about network neutrality to send a letter to DC that just happens to look like a template? It's unclear who was behind the letter, but it certainly looks like evidence of anti-neutrality forces rounding up an odd collection of allies on this issue.

So can net neutrality boosters overcome AT&T's counter-offensive? Absolutely... and in some of the same ways. Forty local grassroots groups just submitted a letter to the FCC supporting the agency's net neutrality proposals. The signers include the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in Oakland, California, and La Asamblea de Derechos Civiles (Assembly of Civil Rights) of Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The incumbent ISPs have deep pockets and decades of experience at this sort of fight, but there's always a possibility that lobbying too aggressively will backfire.

That's what happened in 1976. In his wonderful history of the breakup of AT&T, The Deal of the Century, Steve Coll describes the moment when the Consumer Communications Reform Act fell flat on its face. None other than the Chair of AT&T, legendary executive John deButts, was testifying on its behalf at a hearing. Then Congressman Wirth interrupted his speech.

"Do you have an estimate," Wirth angrily asked, "of what your lobbying activities for 1976 on this bill have cost?" About $600,000, deButts claimed.

"Have you gotten the kind of support and sponsorship you would like?" the Congressman continued. "Frankly, can you tell me how many people AT&T has working full time on this legislation?"

"I have no idea, sir, but it is very few, very few," deButts baldly replied. The hearing audience again howled with laughter, but this time against AT&T, not with it. deButts' answer killed the bill. "By swinging too hard," Coll observed, "the AT&T chairman had missed everything and had hurled himself out of the ring."

It's a mistake that AT&T might well make again as the FCC, backed by a solid pro-net neutrality majority, solicits comments from the public on its Internet non-discrimination proposals.

Frankly, after dealing with AT&T for a decade at every level, business-to-business, wireless, residental, you name it...they can all fucking DIAF.

The company needs to be broken up, the unions need to be dissolved, the execs need to have their earnings and assets confiscated, the customer "service" department needs to get laid off, and the astroturf should all be exposed and tried as the fraudulent scum they are.

I've never dealt with such a crappy, hateful, poorly-managed organization...ever.

The company needs to be broken up, the unions need to be dissolved, the execs need to have their earnings and assets confiscated, the customer "service" department needs to get laid off, and the astroturf should all be exposed and tried as the fraudulent scum they are.

I liked it better when I misread (and re-misread) it as "...have their earrings confiscated..."

They're a crappy company, like many are. And I get your emotion, but maybe it's a bit much?

Originally posted by MattEcho:Are you kidding me? Now you're (Ars) trying to discredit opposition to net neutrality? If you can't win on the arguments, then attack your opponents motives, is that it? You guys are classic.

Tell me this, how many congressmen have taken money from the big money net neutrality backers? Do an expose on that, then maybe I'll think you have an ounce of journalistic integrity.

Or how about doing an objective piece weighing the pros/cons of net neutrality, so we can make an informed choice?

I cant figure out whether you are a troll, an alternate account or an astroturfer yourself.

But on the off case that you arent any of them:net neutrality is essentially status quo, and non-neut is when the teleco decides to limit specific shit because it can.NN backers in general are those that would have to pay more for their current level of service, eg Googlenon-NN backers in general are those taht would earn $$$ for implementing it: eg teleco's

From an objective point of view, nonNN basically boils down to being a tax on the heaviest users and while the rhetoric is strong from the telecos, it seems to provide no actual benefit to ANY class of users in general to differentiate it from the current para-NN state.

Originally posted by MattEcho:Tell me this, how many congressmen have taken money from the big money net neutrality backers? Do an expose on that, then maybe I'll think you have an ounce of journalistic integrity.

And which "big money net neutrality backers" are we talking about? I ask because it's gonna be hard to track them down if we don't know they exist.

Originally posted by MattEcho:Are you kidding me? Now you're (Ars) trying to discredit opposition to net neutrality? If you can't win on the arguments, then attack your opponents motives, is that it? You guys are classic.

Net neutrality does win on arguments, but that isn't relevant here because this is an (excellent) article examining AT&T's lobbying efforts to defeat those arguments in a tidal wave of astroturf and money. See the difference?

quote:

Tell me this, how many congressmen have taken money from the big money net neutrality backers? Do an expose on that, then maybe I'll think you have an ounce of journalistic integrity.

I'm sure Google & friends do pay into many political campaigns, but I'd be surprised if they come anywhere near the level that comes out of the telcos & cable industry. Those older telecom companies have been fighting each other in the halls of power for decades, where the new silicon valley types have been naively assuming tech would solve all problems so politics didn't matter. Even Microsoft didn't have much going on lobby-wise before they got nailed for antitrust violations.

Ignoring your pointless flaming, I think you have a proposal for an interesting article here; identify major players for and against net neutrality and compare their political funding activities. I'd love to see that.

quote:

Or how about doing an objective piece weighing the pros/cons of net neutrality, so we can make an informed choice?

I'm sorry, did I just hear you make an argument for the return of the Fairness Doctrine?

I think it's very narrow-minded to assume everyone with an opinion contrary is misguided or paid-off. I've been a part of several poo-slinging sessions in the comments on Ars and other sites, and repeatedly told I don't understand the topic or been called a "shrill" yet no-one else clearly outlines their issue in rebuttal. Most just toss personal attacks, arrogantly dismiss without a response to items addressed or go down talking points that seem more emotional than rational.

In other words, there is no debate. So, what's next? Neuter Tea Parties?

And I'm no shill. I've never worked with an ISP, never been paid even a cent by one or an affiliate nor am I of any political affiliation that would put my at odds with the current political climate.

Calling someone that without proof or certainty is just an easy way to dismiss them.

Meanwhile, how many Pro-neutrality is getting a free Google service? Should I start discounting those who do as shills?

I really don't think it's necessary.

The heart of the debate is which path benefits the most of us and, regardless of the very emotional responses I get, no one has made a rational argument for why the extended regulation is necessary or helpful to the rest of us. I think that should speak to the Causes' motivations.

Originally posted by MatthiasF:I think it's very narrow-minded to assume everyone with an opinion contrary is misguided or paid-off.

I think it mostly comes up when someone has been registered for less than a year, has only 3 posts (including the one made here) and two out of three of their posts are bashing the site regarding net neutrality articles. It's possible he's just some insane person who doesn't understand the issues and has eaten all the FUD being force fed him by the telcos (see what I did there?), but it does look suspiciously astro-turfy.

If the telcos want to give me free internet access, they can feel free to push through non net neutrality and charge data sources for my access. Otherwise they need to quit their whining. I already pay for internet access. And more than I should apparently, if I were living in a market where there was any real competition for access. Anti net neutrality is just an attempt at extorting data service providers in addition to the money they're already getting from consumers. Really, if anything it's a bit saddening that the telcos (and cable companies) don't get prosecuted for monopolistic and predatory (for cell phones, it's always interesting how different the quoted price per minute/text overage is compared to doing the math on the minute/text per month plans) practices as it is. They should be happy they have it so good.

Just a bit... over the top? Plus, you know, I know which government/entity I at least have some power in, small as it may be. And it's not the telco alliance. You, however, are welcome to vote them in for control instead of the government, if you'd like to. Personally I'm not very fond of being sucked dry by the vampiric telco overlords.

/tongue in cheek... slightly

quote:

The heart of the debate is which path benefits the most of us and, regardless of the very emotional responses I get, no one has made a rational argument for why the extended regulation is necessary or helpful to the rest of us. I think that should speak to the Causes' motivations.

It's very simple. The telcos have essentially monopolistic power over certain levels of internet access to a wide degree, especially in certain areas of the country. Currently, users pay for access, and data providers pay for access (it costs money to have a server connected to the net... quite a bit, in fact, since higher upload rates are usually far more then comparative download rates). Everyone has, essentially, "paid their share." What the telcos want to do is double dip, and charge providers for what their users are accessing, in order to not be throttled. It's essentially an attempt to leverage a monopolistic/antitrust environment into an attempt at what is effectively extortion.

Guess who will end up picking up the bill? you, as a consumer. Do you really think telcos are going to use that money to lower access prices or to roll out more access? No, it's going to go to profits to line their pockets. Sorry, the government doesn't exist to protect all but illicit (just shy of light racketeering) business models. It's not always the greatest at protecting citizens either, but it seems relatively clear where certain interests lie on this one.

Your info from the Washington Post article is inaccurate. Here's the quote from the article:

"All but two of the 72 Democratic lawmakers who cautioned last Friday against open-Internet rules have received campaign donations this year from Internet service providers, the companies most likely to be impacted by new regulations."

And here's the part about AT&T:

"AT&T gave...about $180,000 to 52 of the 72 Democratic lawmakers."

If you read the article, you'll see that's actually a total, not the amount given to each person.

For all you fools out there, net neutrality is the status quo. The big telcos and cable companies want to change this because they have been caught with their pants down as their bandwidth overselling finally caught up with them. As demand shot up with the advent of YouTube and other popular content streaming services, they got exposed, and exposed badly.

Also, the telcos and cable companies see this as an oppurtunity to monetize the content provider revenue stream. They make it sound Google and the other non-pipe owning content providers are making off with a free lunch. Do realize that Google, et al, have paid for all the bandwidth costs that their sites incur. Its just that the last mile is now choked due to increased demand, so quality of service is suffering.

South Korea and Japan laugh at you guys - throttling and traffic shaping isn't the answer, upgrading the last mile to suitable infrastructure is the answer. The telcos don't want to foot this bill, and ironically, they have already been paid for this.

I don't know what to say. Any logical and sane person would have laughed at the arguments against net neutrality out of the building. Yet, it is being taken seriously on its own Chicken Little merits.

It is pretty sad that it's gotten this far. If we actually held them to their word the whole time, and our government didn't allow them to rape and pillage us for all we were worth as taxpayers, we'd actually have decent infrastructure right now. As it stands, you're right, they've been paid at least once for all of this crap, and probably way more than that. The money didn't go to needed upgrades, it went to the executives, who are total human scum.

quote:

Originally posted by pyu:For all you fools out there, net neutrality is the status quo. The big telcos and cable companies want to change this because they have been caught with their pants down as their bandwidth overselling finally caught up with them. As demand shot up with the advent of YouTube and other popular content streaming services, they got exposed, and exposed badly.

Also, the telcos and cable companies see this as an oppurtunity to monetize the content provider revenue stream. They make it sound Google and the other non-pipe owning content providers are making off with a free lunch. Do realize that Google, et al, have paid for all the bandwidth costs that their sites incur. Its just that the last mile is now choked due to increased demand, so quality of service is suffering.

South Korea and Japan laugh at you guys - throttling and traffic shaping isn't the answer, upgrading the last mile to suitable infrastructure is the answer. The telcos don't want to foot this bill, and ironically, they have already been paid for this.

I don't know what to say. Any logical and sane person would have laughed at the arguments against net neutrality out of the building. Yet, it is being taken seriously on its own Chicken Little merits.

post caterphone, when AT&T was being bludgeoned by the competition, they slipped one over on the state regulators by agreeing to the federal breakup. striped of the subsidizing LD, home rates tripled. LD got competitive.

now that they are to some degree re-conglomerated, one needs to watch what both hands are doing.

And I'm no shill. I've never worked with an ISP, never been paid even a cent by one or an affiliate nor am I of any political affiliation that would put my at odds with the current political climate.

Calling someone that without proof or certainty is just an easy way to dismiss them.

Meanwhile, how many Pro-neutrality is getting a free Google service? Should I start discounting those who do as shills?

I really don't think it's necessary.

The heart of the debate is which path benefits the most of us and, regardless of the very emotional responses I get, no one has made a rational argument for why the extended regulation is necessary or helpful to the rest of us. I think that should speak to the Causes' motivations.

All of your past posts show you for who you are, any false claims otherwise can be easily disproved by all of us here.

On this site most of us are a tech savy enough to smell the BS you are pushing.

I hope that AT&T fails at its attempt to shade the truth here. Fact is however that money tends to do a really really good job at that. The real fact is that there is no capacity problem on any of the major carriers networks. They all have enormous dark fiber reserves to draw on even if they were. So that argument needs to be thrown out. So what reason is left to want to throttle specific application traffic from the networks? You answer that. (Hint: it should be obvious).

Meanwhile, how many Pro-neutrality is getting a free Google service? Should I start discounting those who do as shills?

I really don't think it's necessary.

The heart of the debate is which path benefits the most of us and, regardless of the very emotional responses I get, no one has made a rational argument for why the extended regulation is necessary or helpful to the rest of us. I think that should speak to the Causes' motivations.

You just said it yourself; the heart of the debate is which path benefits the most of us.

I think the path the Net-Neutrality parties are going for is very beneficial for all of us because of one main aspect: innovation.

Many new ideas and experiments would not be possible if the status quo was to be changed.

It's like the railroad and road tycoons not letting the aviation or aerospace industry free reins in performing their tasks because they fear they won't be able to *control* or *limit* them on their *roads*.

Okay MatthiasF, I'll accept that you are not a shrill shill, so here are the arguments for Net neutrality as I understand them:

- Because of the high cost of entry (laying the lines), incumbent telco's enjoy monopoly or duopoly status in most locations. This means we have no competition to keep prices down.

- These laying of these lines are/were supported in three ways, monopolistic pricing, often with assistance of local or federal money to ensure that all areas are serviced, and through granting of access right of ways. The latter two are direct or indirect subsidies, granted because of the recognized need for the service (treating it as a utility).

- The internet companies and the users both currently pay for internet access: I pay to access Google's content and Google pays vast sums to be able to serve that content.

- Many companies would like to provide high-bandwidth services, including the telcos, but the last-mile connections are too slow to support all of these. So the telcos would like to prioritize access to the last mile lines to their own services, giving them advantage over other competing services. Net neutrality prevents them from doing this to the degree they would like.

Is this last point fair? When you consider how much we currently pay for telco access, which is effectively monopoly-priced, when you look at the telco companies current profits, and when you consider how many allowances and subsidies have been given to the telcos (laying lines and access right-of-ways, on which they don't pay rent), I don't feel it's a stretch to ask them to act like a utility, subject to regulation.

As a personal example, I pay AT&T $x a month for DSL service with specified rates of data transfer. I frequently work at home and often need to transfer modestly-sized files (< 500MB) to and from computers at work via the scp (ssh) protocol. The transfer rates on these files are regularly at speeds of about 1/3 of the advertised "up to" speeds, and I am sure the speed is not limited to these levels on my workplaces side. At the same time, my area is covered by AT&T's U-verse service, which they would love to sell to me, and which would require data transfers far above what I am currently using.

They also have some enclosed boxes in my backyard which would remain there whether I used their service or not, and which, as I understand it, they do not pay rent on to anyone. I don't have a problem with the boxes being there, as they're small and in the corner of the yard, but I feel that the privilege they enjoy in being allowed to place them rent free is a sign of goodwill that the corporation is not returning in its strident claims that it owns the lines and should be able to do with them as it pleases.

Honestly, you guys have an inflated opinion of yourselves if you think Ars Technica is worth the time and expense of shills. Even if AT&T were to start some kind of astroturf campaign, they wouldn't do it here. It'd be far, far more effective to start the campaign somewhere that's not actively opposed to their goals. They'd take on the easiest jobs and convert the most willing people first.

Besides that... c'mon. Honestly, do you think anybody cares what the average Ars reader thinks? If Ars were a political activism site, this might (MIGHT!) register in somebody's head. But Ars is a place where internet people click through while on break from work and type a few sentences about "evil corps at it again" and "execs ought to die in a fire" and "the Man is sticking it to me" and "where's the value to the consumer?"

Nobody on Ars is ever actually going to take any serious action. The average Ars reader wants to stand on his soapbox and say "God aren't the rest of you dumbasses stupider than me" and "this is the way I'd do things and you're goddam idiots if you disagree." The average Ars reader wants to feel superior and complain. End of story. There's no point in shilling to that audience, because the audience quite frankly doesn't even care about listening to the shill. Ars forum-goers just want to say their two cents and feel like they've done their part.

Thinking that a major telco would waste the money or manpower to shill in Ars is just more self-aggrandizement. Typical Ars forum posting, really.

Originally posted by MattEcho:Are you kidding me? Now you're (Ars) trying to discredit opposition to net neutrality? If you can't win on the arguments, then attack your opponents motives, is that it? You guys are classic.

Tell me this, how many congressmen have taken money from the big money net neutrality backers? Do an expose on that, then maybe I'll think you have an ounce of journalistic integrity.

Or how about doing an objective piece weighing the pros/cons of net neutrality, so we can make an informed choice?

I think the article does exactly the opposite.

quote:

But before you jump on that comment, consider the subject from the viewpoint of a blue-collar Latino, black, or white worker. Where would you have the best chance at finding employment--getting a staff position at everybody's favorite pro-neutrality company, Google, or supporting last mile lines for AT&T?

That reasoning makes sense, and shows that there is in fact another side of the issue to think about here. We techies are more likely to land jobs at a company who uses internet pipes and infrastructure, blue collar workers are more likely to land jobs supporting that infrastructure. It doesn't discount their opinion, and in fact it muddies the waters a bit. Yes, the group in question took money from AT&T, but that's not to say that the position AT&T was pushing is not the one the group would have taken anyway.

AT&T does engage in a lot of astroturfing; they're a communications company FFS. But not all opponents of net neutrality are opposing it just because they are in AT&T's pocket. This is an issue that is very important to a small number of people, but the large portion of the consumer population (who have the most to gain from net neutrality) don't even understand the implications of it.

Despite the obvious it seems that government didn't learn for in the 1990's the government awarded them millions in tax payer money to build a promised "Information Super Highway". Instead they ended up not building anything, getting many concessions, giving out big fat bonuses, raising phone rates, and generally getting away with it. Because of that larceny here we are today with a somewhat patchworked and crippled internet system for which the only future promise is that it will decline even more if something isn't done soon.

Tell me this, how many congressmen have taken money from the big money net neutrality backers? Do an expose on that, then maybe I'll think you have an ounce of journalistic integrity.

Heh, don't hold your breath. Reminds me of how hot and bothered Ars was over the switft boat veterens. Ars taking its marching orders from the NYT, was outraged and saw it as a threat to democracy that a single donor who had given shrub ~$100,000 had also given the swift boat veterns ~$20,000. There also was a lawyer who had ties to both. Now one seemed to mind that soros had given ~$50 million to set up various political action groups. Now one saw that as a threat to democracy, even though his reach is far more expansive in the democratic party then the religious right is among republicans. Now one cared that lawyers for these groups also had ties to the DNC.

Lest I be accused of not making this about technology, if this is such an important matter, why doesn't Ars push this in other tech areas? Where is my platform neutrality? Where is the call for legislation to stop MS from continually building proprietary tech into their OS that prevents competition? Why is there no legislation about DX which excludes competitors? Why is MS allowed to give money to game developers to develop for DX and the mac platform? Why mac? Since the anti-trust hearing MS can't restrict a game developer through resources given to only develop for windows OS, but it can to Windows and mac. Mac is a closed platform that could not really compete, in terms of raw units, with MS on the desktop, so MS spreads money around to develop for windows and mac. I am just making an example of MS, but it could be other tech companies as well with monopolies or dominate market share certain areas. So, uh, where is the call for legislation and neutrality for these tech areas? If this is so good for telcos, why not other tech companies?

Despite the obvious it seems that government didn't learn for in the 1990's the government awarded them millions in tax payer money to build a promised "Information Super Highway". Instead they ended up not building anything, getting many concessions, giving out big fat bonuses, raising phone rates, and generally getting away with it. Because of that larceny here we are today with a somewhat patchworked and cripped internet system for which the only future promise is that it will decline even more if something isn't done soon.

And that right there is the key. If the physical network throughout the US had been funded by private investment from telcos, I'd be far more inclined to let them do whatever they want with it (including deprioritizing services that don't directly make them money).

But it isn't. It was and is subsidized both directly and indirectly by the tax paying population, which puts it in a different category of service. Just as I'm in favor of "appliance neutrality", so my electric company can't charge GE (and therefore me) if I buy a GE appliance instead of a Kenmore, I am in favor of network neutrality so my ISP can't charge Ars if I come here for news instead of att.my.yahoo.com.

In addition, it lists the number of lobbyists each member has for each telecom/cable company and the amount of money they have gotten throughout the past 2 years.

You will also find many links to other articles talking all about it within the article I linked. In particular, notice that John McCain is easily at the top of those who have received contributions which totals to be about $900,000 over the past 2 years. Hmmm Internet Freedom Act eh? I wonder who is sponsoring that. It was also McCain who said "I'm an illiterate who has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get," McCain said in an interview with Yahoo/Politico earlier this year. This says to me that the idea of ISPs manipulating content in such a way is not an idea of his own, but rather it is an idea that the ISPs planted in his head. In other words, if it weren't for the current administration and FCC we were pretty much guaranteed this sort of future from the ISPs, and we are also guaranteed that they will fight for it again when the administration changes hands again in the future. Keep that in mind the next time you vote.

Then there is Max Baucus (conservative blue dog democrat) who is high up on that list too so you can expect him to try and voice "bipartisan" support for McCains Internet Freedom Act. It's all BS.

Tell me this, how many congressmen have taken money from the big money net neutrality backers? Do an expose on that, then maybe I'll think you have an ounce of journalistic integrity.

Heh, don't hold your breath. Reminds me of how hot and bothered Ars was over the switft boat veterens. Ars taking its marching orders from the NYT, was outraged and saw it as a threat to democracy that a single donor who had given shrub ~$100,000 had also given the swift boat veterns ~$20,000. There also was a lawyer who had ties to both. Now one seemed to mind that soros had given ~$50 million to set up various political action groups. Now one saw that as a threat to democracy, even though his reach is far more expansive in the democratic party then the religious right is among republicans. Now one cared that lawyers for these groups also had ties to the DNC.

Lest I be accused of not making this about technology, if this is such an important matter, why doesn't Ars push this in other tech areas? Where is my platform neutrality? Where is the call for legislation to stop MS from continually building proprietary tech into their OS that prevents competition? Why is there no legislation about DX which excludes competitors? Why is MS allowed to give money to game developers to develop for DX and the mac platform? Why mac? Since the anti-trust hearing MS can't restrict a game developer through resources given to only develop for windows OS, but it can to Windows and mac. Mac is a closed platform that could not really compete, in terms of raw units, with MS on the desktop, so MS spreads money around to develop for windows and mac. I am just making an example of MS, but it could be other tech companies as well with monopolies or dominate market share certain areas. So, uh, where is the call for legislation and neutrality for these tech areas? If this is so good for telcos, why not other tech companies?

Simple answer: because MS - and these "other tech companies" you reference - didn't accept vast sums of money from the fed.gov to build their products.

Logical fallacy answer: your rant about whether Ars' coverage of other technology companies is consistent with their coverage of network neutrality is entirely beside the point when it comes to discussing network neutrality itself. You are committing an ad hominem fallacy by attempting to discredit the argument by discrediting the person making it. Even ignoring that, and assuming that your point about "other technology companies" being treated differently by the fed.gov, you still haven't said anything useful about network neutrality. That person A is getting away with something does not mean that person B should also get away with it.

The reason we need the government to regulate net neutrality is because the free market does not exist when talking about ISPs. In most areas, most ISPs have a geographical monopoly on internet (and cable) services, especially of the high speed type. Therefore due to lack of competition we have no chance of competing services trying to one up each other in quality, speed, and services. They can basically fuck us all in the ass with a tire iron and there is nothing we can do about it. If you want the market to maintain itself then the government is going to have to step in and start breaking up these monopolies, either way the government needs to get involved like it or not.

Where would you have the best chance at finding employment--getting a staff position at everybody's favorite pro-neutrality company, Google, or supporting last mile lines for AT&T?

Because those are the only two choices? Why in the world would anyone conflate goals to jobs in such a myopic manner?

Without Net Neutrality, existing networks can seriously curtail their build-outs and milk the lines they already have for more profit-per-mile. Fewer jobs are guaranteed in that scenario.

With Net Neutrality, they'd have to at least maintain their snail's pace of build-out and (hope against hope) there might actually be more competition, which would open countless opportunities for people-not-currently-running-local-telecom-monopolies.

You know if these guys diverted all the money they pay for lobbying, and bribes, and buying support from various groups they could probably have upgraded the tubes by now, hell maybe so much so that they wouldn't have to worry so much about their bullshit network management practices.

Originally posted by BarkingGhostAR:By the people, for the people. As such, the Feds should only be listening to individual people, their opinions, desires, etc., and not that of some organization or corporation.

AT&T is aware of that too. That is why there is a lot of suspicion that they are trying to camouflage their attempts to look like some kind of majority opinion through a lot of non-profit organizations. They are not individuals, but they certainly do seem less shady on the outside looking in until you see how much money they are getting from outside bias influences.

Originally posted by giggity:Frankly, after dealing with AT&T for a decade at every level, business-to-business, wireless, residental, you name it...they can all fucking DIAF.

The company needs to be broken up, the unions need to be dissolved, the execs need to have their earnings and assets confiscated, the customer "service" department needs to get laid off, and the astroturf should all be exposed and tried as the fraudulent scum they are.

I've never dealt with such a crappy, hateful, poorly-managed organization...ever.

Oh and, great analysis, Ars

First of all, you need to keep in mind that the low level workers DON'T set company policy. NEXT, you need to remember that a lot of us Arsians WORK for at&t. I just was at a lanparty this weekend, and half the people there worked for at&t.

And I'm NOT an astroturfer. Check out my post history if you want, I'm a gamer. I won't touch the subject of net neutrality, leaving it only with a "No Comment" on the chance that a higher level manager may read this.

Originally posted by Demondeluxe:You know if these guys diverted all the money they pay for lobbying, and bribes, and buying support from various groups they could probably have upgraded the tubes by now, hell maybe so much so that they wouldn't have to worry so much about their bullshit network management practices.

Except they wouldn't be around, and someone else will buy the new tubes from the bank when AT&T closes. It's unfortunate the hoops we have to jump through sometimes.

Originally posted by pyu:South Korea and Japan laugh at you guys - throttling and traffic shaping isn't the answer, upgrading the last mile to suitable infrastructure is the answer. The telcos don't want to foot this bill, and ironically, they have already been paid for this.

I don't know what to say. Any logical and sane person would have laughed at the arguments against net neutrality out of the building. Yet, it is being taken seriously on its own Chicken Little merits.

Google and most CDNs use peered dark fiber networks to keep their costs minimal to the edge of consumer networks. So, they're not paying much at all considering.

But who do you expect will upgrade the most intricate part of the Internet, the last mile? As I've repeatedly said in previous posts, all of the major ISPs have amassed tons of debt to get where we are today. Where's the money going to come from to correct the problem we're describing?

Also, I find it incredibly ironic that people continue to still use South Korean and Japan as examples. Both do not have net neutrality regulation, and in fact have the opposite. South Korea allows ISPs to block competitor VOIP traffic and Japan's state owned telecom is allowed to run it's television service at higher rates than normal traffic.

I think the Chicken Little metaphor is more appropriate for the pro's not the cons, who paint doomsday scenarios if it's "not defended". Meanwhile, Net Neutrality is not "status quo" just because you say the issue didn't exist before now. There was no legislation or policy prior to the last two-three years mentioning any of the ideals being pushed today.

Gee, why didn't the ATT exec just hold a gun to his employees heads to force them to "grass-roots" for him. That quoted email was pretty much the verbal version of such. "Do this, or your job is at risk. Nuff said."

While I realize folks are selfish .. interested primarily in their own self-interests .. it kills me that some groups, like that HTTP group, are against Net Neutrality because it could take away Latino jobs. Look, they'll find jobs elsewhere; we all have. Why not focus on the bigger picture and support or go against something for the greater good, not just your own or your own ethnic groups self-interests.

Matthew Lasar / Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.